Underwood v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-DR-01335-SCT Linked Case(s): 2009-DR-01335-SCT ; 2009-dr-01335-sct |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-13-2010 Opinion Author: Kitchens, J. Holding: Leave to Seek Post-Conviction Relief denied. Motion for Relief from Judgment or for Leave to File Successor Petition for Post-Conviction Relief filed by petitioner is denied. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Death penalty post-conviction relief - Suppression of favorable evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Graves, P.JJ., Dickinson, Randolph, Lamar, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DEATH PENALTY - POST CONVICTION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-25-1995 Appealed from: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: John Toney Disposition: Justin Underwood was indicted for capital murder in the kidnaping and shooting death of Virginia Ann Harris. He was convicted by a Madison County jury and was sentenced to death at the conclusion of the penalty phase of his bifurcated trial. This Court affirmed Underwood’s conviction and sentence in Underwood v. State, 708 So. 2d 18 (Miss. 1998). Underwood then sought post-conviction relief pursuant to the Mississippi Uniform Post- Conviction Collateral Relief Act (UPCCRA). Miss. Code Ann. §§ 99-39-1 to 99-39-119 (Rev. 2007 and Supp. 2009). His petition was denied in Underwood v. State, 919 So. 2d 931 (Miss. 2005). Case Number: 2246 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Justin Underwood a/k/a Justin H. Underwood |
JAMES W. CRAIG, MARK D. JICKA |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JASON L. DAVIS, MARVIN L. WHITE |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Death penalty post-conviction relief - Suppression of favorable evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Justin Underwood was convicted of capital murder and was sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. Underwood then sought post-conviction relief. His petition was denied. Underwood has now filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment or for Leave to File Successor Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Underwood argues that, prior to trial, the State failed to disclose that it had subjected the victim’s husband to two polygraph tests about the circumstances surrounding the murder and that one of those tests indicated that the husband was being deceptive. Underwood’s trial attorney has submitted an affidavit in which he states that, had he known of the results of those tests, he would have cross-examined the husband more aggressively regarding his claim that he was at work when the crime occurred. The suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. To establish a violation, the defendant must show that the government possessed evidence favorable to the defendant (including impeachment evidence); that the defendant does not possess the evidence nor could he obtain it himself with any reasonable diligence; that the prosecution suppressed the favorable evidence; and that had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. Despite Underwood’s claim that the husband was deceptive while being tested, the results of the polygraph examinations were “inconclusive.” The State has produced an affidavit from the investigator who conducted the polygraph examinations in which the investigator swears that “[b]oth polygraph tests administered to [the husband] were inconclusive and did not indicate deception.” Moreover, the results of polygraph testing are not admissible in evidence. Even if the State had disclosed to the defense all information related to the polygraph tests, none of that evidence could have reached the jury. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
